memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
---- In-universe categories Brain A subcat to Category:Anatomy with all the anatomical parts of the brain as well as things like neurotransmitters etc. There is a list on the brain page to start this category. :I like the idea, but is that the best name for it? How about "Nervous system"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::"Brain anatomy" seems like the obvious term for what you seem to want to be doing. I too think that "brain" is a bit too vague: it seems like the proposed category would be intended for brain components, but if it's just called "brain" people might not get that and put things like "lobotomy", "cranial implant" or "aneurysm" in it. Otherwise, Support. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC) :I suppose if there are enough that fall into such a category, we could add "neurological conditions" as well. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 22, 2016 (UTC) Astronauts See all the names at Space shuttle missions. Many are only listed in Category:Humans, which I feel is kind of sad, given the historical importance of their roles. This is what I really meant to do with this suggestion. Call it a better name if you can think of one. --LauraCC (talk) 20:40, January 26, 2017 (UTC) :Not addressing the reason the last suggestion failed isn't a good way to start here. Changing the name to something worse isn't helping either. - 21:13, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Now there are plenty more names (the scarcity of which on the "astronaut" page was mentioned the last time as being a reason why not), and they clearly also fall into a more important category than the bland category of "Humans" alone. I don't know what it would be a subcat of, and I welcome naming suggestions. Take G. Burdette, for example - beyond "Humans", they get the category of "Fleet Operations Center personnel". How about "shuttle personnel" or "NASA personnel"? (I like the latter better, myself) --LauraCC (talk) 21:16, January 26, 2017 (UTC) To my way of thinking, if the following hypothetical scenario happened - Hoshi Sato is in the middle of a park on Earth when Human Ensign Smith comes up to her in uniform and introduces his identical twin brother, who's in civilian clothing, saying, "I want you to meet my twin brother, Joe. Unlike me, he didn't choose Starfleet - he's an economist." and leaves it at that. "Joe Smith" would then (quite naturally) be categorized under "Category:Humans", because that's all we know about him. But these astronauts - even though they're just names on assignment patches - we know what they were beyond simply being Humans. Does anybody see my side? --LauraCC (talk) 16:20, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :So you want to exclude people like Christa McAuliffe, Julie Payette, Valeri Tokarev, and Ilan Ramon? They are not NASA personnel, they just flew on NASA's shuttles. Not to mention people like Yuri Gagarin, assuming a reference can actually make it on screen at some point. - 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC) No, I didn't. The category could include those who worked in conjunction with NASA (the page could explain this at the top). --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Then your intention isn't a category for NASA personnel, and the name's wrong. - 17:37, January 27, 2017 (UTC) But my premise is sound, to group them together? Because they all have something in common other than just being Human; they were members of the space program. --LauraCC (talk) 17:39, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Support "Astronauts" in Category:Personnel lists and "Earth astronauts" in the obvious and Category:Earth personnel. - 18:26, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Thank you. --LauraCC (talk) 18:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Subspace communication To replace Template:Subspace, unless it could be edited into "technology" and "types of communications" sections. --LauraCC (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC) category=Subspace category=communications technology --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, February 1, 2017 (UTC) I've left off sortkeying some of the ones in category "subspace" that I recognize as communication related until the category idea is rejected or accepted. --LauraCC (talk) 17:19, February 2, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not exactly clear on why it needs replaced, unless we're on a mission to eliminate all of these navigational-type templates. I wouldn't be opposed to a category of "Subspace communications" for these articles as a sub-cat of "Communications technology", but I don't really know that it's necessary. I'd like to hear some other opinions. -- Renegade54 (talk) 20:40, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Those that are more like a diagram/table and less like a long list, such as Template:EnterpriseHelmsmen are fine. My problem with the subspace communications one is that it's not organized like that. It's just an alphabetical list. --LauraCC (talk) 20:46, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :That's exactly what it is, an alphabetical list linking articles in two distinct categories: "Subspace" and "Communications technology". It *has* grown longer over time from when it was first implemented, though, so it *may* be time to retire it in favor of another approach. Anyone else? -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:14, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Support. - 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC) Biochemical compounds category=Biology category=Chemical compounds category=Biology category=poisonous substances category=Physiology category=Chemical compounds For those "Chemical compounds" secreted naturally by biological lifeforms rather than produced. Subcat of "Chemical compounds". Also, there's probably enough enzymes/enzyme-related pages to have an "enzymes" category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:43, February 9, 2017 (UTC) That is, there probably will be when all those red links at "enzyme" are made into pages. --LauraCC (talk) 20:08, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :This one probably isn't a bad idea. And some of these may be miscategorized to begin with; I'm not sure, from a biochemical standpoint, what the difference is between categorizing one under "Biology" and another under "Physiology". And the ones under "Poisonous substances" are still chemical compounds, so they should also be under the "Chemical compounds" category as well, if they're not already. -- Renegade54 (talk) 22:18, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Support if all of these can be categorized under physiology; if not, oppose, as this would be a better off as a nav template then. - 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC) What about "enzymes"? --LauraCC (talk) 21:12, February 23, 2017 (UTC) Temporal phenomena Using the list @ Temporal anomaly, etc. Subcat of "Category:Time travel", which would continue to deal with things like Temporal agent, Temporal transporter, etc, that are tech and titles. (Halted sortkeying in "Time travel" until this is decided.) --LauraCC (talk) 19:38, February 9, 2017 (UTC) We already have Category:Subspace phenomena and Category:Astronomical phenomena, after all, this would complement it. --LauraCC (talk) 19:44, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose. Time travel doesn't need to be broken down and this wouldn't combine any other categories. - 12:35, February 19, 2017 (UTC) Vehicle Development personnel Using the lists at Vehicle Development (which together add up to 22 unique people), a subcat of Category:Fleet Operations Center personnel. --LauraCC (talk) 20:11, February 9, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose. I don't think we should replace those lists with a combined alphabetical one, so other than we can, I don't see a rationale here. - 06:44, February 20, 2017 (UTC) Denobula A Denobula category similar to those we have for Romulus, Cardassia etc. We have animals, institutions, locations, events and other stuff related to this planet which would be collected. Kennelly (talk) 14:57, February 24, 2017 (UTC) Production POV categories E3 award winners and nominees Apparently Star Trek (video game) won some E3 awards (aka "Game Critics Awards") http://www.digitalextremes.com/news/2011/08/star-trek-wins-big-e3-2011, and Star Trek: Bridge Crew was nominated recently for best vr game. http://uploadvr.com/best-vr-games-awards-e3-2016/ I'm still unsure which one is the proper name for the award, hence my hesitation to add it to the awards page. --LauraCC (talk) 17:23, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Also, would the expo itself get its own page (like some magazines have, such as Prosthetics, which isn't an exclusively Trek publication) or a section on a general expo page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Entertainment_Expo --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Feel free to wait to answer my second post about a page for the expo until this discussion is moved to a category talk page (if it ever is). --LauraCC (talk) 21:38, January 24, 2017 (UTC) Puppeteers A subcat of "Category:Performers"(?) for all who operated puppets on a Star Trek production. * Alison Elbl * Bob Baker * Heide Pendergast * Dan Curry * John Fifer * Kevin D. Carlson * Alan McFarland * David Stipes * Paul Elliot * J.J. Abrams (tribble on ) * Tony Hudson (whales) * Mark Miller (whales) --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, January 12, 2017 (UTC) We have other options also: 1) include this list in a background note @ the in-universe article Puppeteer (which only has one reference - I've already added a short note saying the shows used puppeteers to operate small moving creatures) 2) create a real-world page (a la Stand-in) for this role (my preference if a category isn't made) --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I just wonder how the real-world article and the in-universe one would be disambiguated? "(Real world)"? "(Production)"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:00, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I previously disambiguated United States Postal Service in universe from United States Postal Service (real world) that way, but I don't particularly like that approach either. --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, January 19, 2017 (UTC) Maintenance categories Anthology covers Now that we have Category:Anthologies, it seems logical to have their covers be in "Category: Memory Alpha images (anthology covers)" rather than "novel covers". --LauraCC (talk) 20:05, February 18, 2017 (UTC) :I'm not seeing why we need this, since it doesn't really add anything to that tree branch. Omnibus covers are "replacing" other novel covers, but these novels were always ment to only have "one" cover. - 21:55, February 18, 2017 (UTC) Not anthologies of previously published entire books, but short story collection covers, like the Strange New Worlds book covers. --LauraCC (talk) 17:12, February 21, 2017 (UTC)